We've recently got a new cordless phone (BT Verve 410), and I've programmed our favourite names/numbers into the directory. For those with the same area code as us I've omitted the area code. When we receive a call from outside our area the calls/redial lists show the caller's name. However, when we receive a call from within our area the calls and redial lists show the caller's full number (including the area code) instead of the caller's name. If I store their full number (including the area code) in the directory, then the calls/redial lists show the caller's name.
Is this normal? I've always understood that you shouldn't include the area code if you're calling a phone in the same area as yours, because the call would cost more.
|
>> Is this normal?
yes
I've always understood that you shouldn't include the area code if you're
>> calling a phone in the same area as yours because the call would cost more.
Not true. Its based on distance between exchanges (or used to, when everything was sent over a BT trunk)
|
Call charges used to be based on 'charge areas'. Calls to your own and adjacent charge areas used to be at local rate (remember dialling some codes starting with 9?).
This information used to be in the front of the BT phone book, mine now has vouchers for companies I'll never use.
As long as the people building the data for your exchange get it right, then prefixing with the full STD code shouldn't affect the call charge.
I say 'shouldn't affect the call charge', as when I was moved onto a new exchange my bills increased considerably, as did many others according to the local newspaper. I could prove this with bills going back a few years, but it wasn't until Oftel were involved would BT back down. My bills then reverted to the previous level. I susbsequently heard the new exchange data was charging for incoming calls. Although no-one would admit this, they wouldn't deny it when asked directly.
|
Telephone calls/redial lists question - Zero
